antagonist

In the first line here, a 'CROSS WT' of 220 lbs is specified. I'm assuming it's meant to read 'GROSS WT'. In the second line, the 'ROCKET MORO' is specified as an 'MR 58 MOD 5'. I'm assuming it's meant to read 'ROCKET MOTOR' and 'MK 58 MOD 5'. In the third line, an 'MSN' is mentioned, followed by a numeric code formatted like a NATO Stock Number (NSN). Therefore I'm assuming it's meant to read 'NSN' on the missile, too. (Also, is the classification group for AAMs really 1337? I mean, seriously?) BTW this is entirely your fault, ED. You modeled the pylons and lauch rails in such detail I couldn't help but take a peek. :music_whistling:

And I suppose you would also want missiles' rocket engines arbitrarily fail to fire because DCS should simulate end of service life components there, too? Or wait, let's start simulating worn out engine components, too! That would really enrich gameplay, wouldn't you say?

In all honesty the whole radar is WIP at this point. :P

It's a VERTICAL SCAN mode. For reference, this is vertical: | And this is horizontal: -

Something peculiar happens to the AIM-7 when I fire it at a target crossing my nose at a constant speed and heading. What I assume should happen is the missile's seeker head calculating an intercept point along the target's course, then moving towards it in an almost straight line. What I see happening instead is the missile at first behaving just like this, and then the rocket motor burns out. Immediately afterwards, it attempts to acquire a different intercept vector due to the sudden and totally unanticipated loss of thrust, and in doing so, losing so much speed it falls out of the sky. Shouldn't the seeker be aware of how much burn time its rocket motor has and calculate the intercept vector accordingly so massive course changes don't become necessary? E: The target in question was beaming me at less than 13 nm, going less than 400 kts. The missile travelled around 15-18 nm before it encountered loss of control due to drag. This is a ballpark figure unless someone would be kind enough to tell me if and where Tacview may store this kind of information.

This should probably be in the bug report subforum.

Same for me, X55 throttle.

But the target did not react to the missile threat in any way, shape or form. The missile should have been able to get within attack range according to the HUD readout, and it failed utterly to do that.

It worked because the missile didn't have to do any sort of corrections to its flight path. Try firing at a target beaming you, where an additional ~10 seconds of flying time would have let the missile hit and see it start to flounder immediately after burnout. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/199290542796963850/453212666937344000/Tacview-20180602-230441-DCS-SoH_FA-18C_AIM-7_Sparrow.zip.acmi I fired from well within the effective range, but outside the NEZ. The target plane never maneuvered to counter the missile and never meaningfully changed speed.

Should the hook go back up into the fully retracted position after catching a wire?

Have you tried setting your HUD to night mode? I couldn't see anything past the reflector plate until I did.

Well yes, but what prevents you from using applying the parking brake after you've moved out of the way? :P

It's just a flesh wound!

Why would the plane care if it's stationary at the parking spot or ~50 m further down towards the catapults?

AIM-7 intercept behavior Something peculiar happens to the AIM-7 when I fire it at a target crossing my nose at a constant speed and heading. What I assume should happen is the missile's seeker head calculating an intercept point along the target's course, then moving towards it in an almost straight line. What I see happening instead is the missile at first behaving just like this, and then the rocket motor burns out. Immediately afterwards, it attempts to acquire a different intercept vector due to the sudden and totally unanticipated loss of thrust, and in doing so, losing so much speed it falls out of the sky. Shouldn't the seeker be aware of how much burn time its rocket motor has and calculate the intercept vector accordingly so massive course changes don't become necessary? E: The target in question was beaming me at less than 13 nm, going less than 400 kts. The missile travelled around 15-18 nm before it encountered loss of control due to drag. This is a ballpark figure unless someone would be kind enough to tell me if and where Tacview may store this kind of information.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it won't see an IL-76 one nm ahead of me.

I just checked the Steam DLC page, I don't see that "VR headset required" message. E: In the Steam software, that is. Going to check Steampowered now. E2: And not on Steampowered's store page, either.

Did you attempt to light it off with your afterburners for...science?

Yeah, the step about enabling the OBOGS is in Chinese for some reason. :P

There's also something apparently wrong about the plane's behavior after going to full flaps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynUj60zicDw

The confusion probably stems from the fact Russian planes use a system working the other way around.

Well, if they're going to extend the map towards the north, they might as well go all the way and go for a merge with Caucasus if at all feasible.

I just want to welcome the ten AIM-120 overlord. =)

Hypothetically speaking, would we be talking about the possibility of an F-14D update to the existing A/B pack, an expansion pack style addon or an entirely separate module?

Is anybody else having issues getting the J-11's engines to start?